Radioactive waste is a substance that there is a lot to dispose of in the United States. "What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscapes?"(http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0207/feature1/index.html#, 05/01/08) Even if the other 312 million tons of spent fuel and machinery for mining and refining uranium, theres still 91 million gallons of waste which will have a chance of lasting up to (if not longer than) 100,000 years. The low level waste stops being bad after 10-50 years, and this can be stored for the relativley short amount of time that it needs to deteriorate. However this is not the case for high level radiation. Overall, there are 114 sites that need cleanup from nuclear material.
But, temporary storage is unsafe. "As the plutonium is broken down, plutonium dust is created which presents a relevant safety concern. If this dust were dispersed into the atmosphere, radioactive plutonium could spread quickly and easily through the environment, creating a very dangerous hazard to humans and the environment."(http://www.etsu.edu/writing/3120f99/zctb3/nuclear2.htm#nw4, 05/01/08). If the dust manages to escape while being stored, it can be a hazard to the environment. This is the most common method among storing radioactive material.
However, there are a few options being considered to use for the disposal of radioactive material. "A few options are being considered for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste, including: the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel burning method, the vitrification method and the Subductive Waste Disposal Method."(http://www.etsu.edu/writing/3120f99/zctb3/nuclear2.htm#nw4, 05/01/08) They are considering a few options for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste. However none of these methods are actually efficient and safe. The mixed oxide fuel burning method mixes plutonium with uranium and the object of this is to create energy through nuclear fission, thus reducing the amount of plutonium and making it less usable, especially for weapons. However the byproduct of this still needs to be disposed of properly to ensure it is not used for weapons or a danger to the environment. The vitrification method mixes plutonium with radioactive waste and then placing this mixture in glass containers. It would then be buried and be safe from the environment and from being mined for use. However it is possible it could leak out if it is not stored properly, or be salvaged for the use of nuclear weapons. The subductive waste disposal method calls for the waste to be put into one of the subductive plates of the earth where it would be carried into the center of the earth and become physically and chemically altered from its original state. This is the only method that is safe for the environment and from re-utilization of the material. The only problem is if the waste were to escape under water, it could damage the environment badly.
But even though there are many different methods for the storage and eradication of nuclear waste, there are many cases where the material leaks out into the environment, such as in Hanford, Washington. "Cleanup to a nationally accepted level will likely take until at least 2030 and cost at least $50 billion total."(A River Damned, Nat Geo, Hanford from www.wikipedia.org, 05/01/08) This is a good example of how hard it is to clean up nuclear waste. The area surrounding the Hanford waste site is seriously damaged, and if they had a proper way to dispose of the waste, we wouldn't have this problem. But the surrounding area was damaged by over 133 million cubic meters on land and 1.3 trillion liters went into the water and the soil. However, temporary storage seems to be the only easy way to get rid of nuclear waste.
However, nuclear waste isn't the only dangerous thing coming out of power plants. "We already know that the containment domes on many of the reactors in the United States would not prevent the release of radiation during an meltdown accident." (www.greenpeace.org, 05/01/08) Because the way the nuclear power plants were built, they are unsafe if there is an accident. This poses a threat to the community it supports with energy and the workers inside the reactor. If the radiation did spill out, it would hurt life forms living near it with an explosion or radiation and ruin the environment.
A good example of what could happen is Chernobyl. The World Health Organization reviewed after the reactor exploded and radioactive particles went into the atmosphere. "However, the study by the WHO, that this claim is based on, forecasts 8930 fatalities. "And when one then reviews the reference given in WHO report, one arrives at 10,000 to 25,000 additional deaths due to cancer and leukemia", says Pflugbeil."(http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/research.html, 05/01/08) The Chernobyl incident not only killed a number of people in the surrounding area, but it spread to other people and caused deaths, which took longer. The reactor exploded due to a power surge and then some of the equipment around it set fire. This is a good example of how radiation can affect a community.
Even though a meltdown hasn't happened recently, that doesn't mean we haven't come close. "We've had nearly 200 near misses at U.S. reactors. Of those, the federal government has concluded that at least 8 were highly significant. In fact, in Ohio just a few years ago, we came so close to a nuclear meltdown that if the reactor had operated for as little as a week or two more, you would have had a meltdown that rivaled 3 Mile Island"(www.greenpeace.org, 05/01/08) This shows that the reactors really aren't safe. Even though they didn't have a total meltdown, it still came really close to something that could have been disastrous. How many near misses need to happen before there's an actual meltdown?
Though there may have been a number of near misses recently, the United States is still dependent on nuclear power. "There are 103, soon to be 104, nuclear plants in the United States, each of which puts hundreds of thousands of people at risk in the event of a meltdown, or of a terrorist attack. Undeterred, the nuclear industry is attempting a comeback, arguing that nuclear energy is vital to address global warming." (www.greenpeace.org, 05/01/08) The people who live near power plants are in danger of not only a meltdown.
It seems that people are trying to use nuclear power to combat global warming, it is not the most effective way to combat it. "Every dollar you spend on energy efficiency in renewable goes 7 to 10 times further than a dollar spent on nuclear power at displacing global warming gases."(www.Greenpeace.org, 05/01/08 Even though nuclear energy reduces the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the atmosphere, there are other ways to produce energy more efficiently and safer than nuclear energy. There is significantly less hazardous waste produced from other renewable sources such as wind, water, and solar power.
However global warming isn't the only concern among countries that need energy. "Although diversification is a noble goal, the operation of nuclear power plants is highly complicated. Safety alone should encourage Ukraine to use nuclear fuel for which its nuclear power plants were designed, i.e. fuel made in Russia." (http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080402/102834109.html, 05/01/08) Ukraine has recently made a major mistake in the running of their nuclear power plants. They are planning to import nuclear fuel from the United States, even though the reactors were designed for Russian nuclear fuel. This could potentially cause a lot of problems and even a meltdown. This shows that some governments see the need for energy greater rather than safely finding a way to get energy without having to spend more money.
www.es-cat.org/~dsmith
No comments:
Post a Comment